Household Responses to Pricing Garbage by the Bag
This paper estimates household reaction to the implementation of unit-pricing for the collection of residential garbage. We gather original data on weight and volume of weekly garbage and recycling of 75 households in Charlottesville, Virginia, both before and after the start of a program that requires an eighty-cent sticker on each bag of garbage. This data set is the first of its kind. We estimate household demands for the collection of garbage and recyclable material, the effect on density of household garbage, and the amount of illegal dumping by households. We also estimate the probability that a household chooses each method available to reduce its garbage. In response to the implementation of this unit-pricing program, we find that households (1) reduced the weight of their garbage by 14%, (2) reduced the volume of garbage by 37% and (3) increased the weight of their recyclable materials by 16%. We estimate that additional illegal -- or at least suspicious -- disposal accounts for 0.42 pounds per person per week, or 28% of the reduction in garbage observed at the curb.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
|Date of creation:||Feb 1994|
|Date of revision:|
|Note:||Published, American Economic Review v86 n4 Sep 96 pp971-84|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Austin, Texas 78712|
Phone: +1 (512) 471-3211
Fax: +1 (512) 471-3510
Web page: http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/economics/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Hong Seonghoon & Adams Richard M. & Love H. Alan, 1993. "An Economic Analysis of Household Recycling of Solid Wastes: The Case of Portland, Oregon," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 136-146, September.
- Fullerton Don & Kinnaman Thomas C., 1995.
"Garbage, Recycling, and Illicit Burning or Dumping,"
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 78-91, July.
- Don Fullerton & Thomas C. Kinnaman, 1993. "Garbage, Recycling, and Illicit Burning or Dumping," NBER Working Papers 4374, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Richardson, Robert A. & Havlicek, Joseph Jr., 1978. "Economic analysis of the composition of household solid wastes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 103-111, March.
- Baumol, William J., 1977. "On recycling as a moot environmental issue," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 83-87, March.
- James D. Reschovsky & Sarah E. Stone, 1994. "Market incentives to encourage household waste recycling: Paying for what you throw away," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 120-139.
- Richardson, Robert A. & Havlicek, Joseph, Jr., 1974. "On Analysis Of Seasonal Household Waste Generation," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 6(02), December.
- Richardson, Robert A. & Havlicek, Joseph, 1974. "An Analysis of Seasonal Household Waste Generation," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(02), pages 143-155, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tex:carewp:9402. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Caroline Thomas)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.